The evolving story of a hopeful skeptic.

Hello, everyone! It has been a while since last I posted, mostly because I’ve had an insanely busy summer (luckily I haven’t lost my touch for silly post titles!). Amongst my busy schedule this summer, I’ve been doing a lot of observational “research,” if not actual data synthesis. One of the things I noticed (and then began actively watching for) is people’s inclination toward finding (and talking about) ways in which they are or have become victims. Now, I would like to say right off the bat, that in almost every single case, a given person is a victim in some way, whether it be due to sexism, racial discrimination, or a restaurant that got a bunch of bad reviews on Yelp—indeed, I believe that all of us are victims in one way or another, and some people more than other people. The point of this post is not to invalidate anyone’s status as a victim; let us take for granted that everyone is, in fact, a victim every time he (or she1) claims to be, and ignore any false claims that may exist.

I feel it is important to note that I have come from a background where I was relatively ignorant to such things as racism, sexism, and religious persecution. It was a “privileged” background. Even with that said, in my privileged formative years, would see ways in which I was the victim, even though my victimization was nothing compared to what many people deal with. Seeing that in myself, and watching others during my “summer of observation,” I’ve come to the conclusion that from our earliest years, we innately have the predisposition to be a victim. You can observe this behavior even in young children, when they fight over who has had it worse. A conversation generally will go something like this:

“My summer was really terrible! I broke my arm when I fell out of a tree and had to wear a cast for two months!”

“Oh yeah? Well I broke my leg when I fell off my scooter doing a jump and couldn’t walk for almost THREE months!” Continue reading →

I know I’ve already written about the topic of abortion, but I feel a need to write about it again. In the last post I wrote regarding this controversial topic, I wrote that I was disappointed that there is no “common ground” between the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers. However, I am happy to report that I may not have been entirely correct in that assertion. But first some background on where I sit in the debate…

It is important that I note that I completely understand both sides of the argument. For the pro-life camp, the embryo and fetus are seen as a person; it is as simple as that. It is an un-disprovable (or rather, “unfalsifiable”) perspective that is just as valid as any other viewpoint.
It is a person, and there is no reasonable excuse to kill an innocent person, including rape, incest, etc. After all, what did the baby (and I use the term deliberately, in this case) do to deserve death? The pro-life people claim to see it as no different from killing a 4-year-old. That said, I also can understand the pro-choice argument. To the pro-choice arguers, it is a simple belief that the fetus is not a person until a certain stage of development (on where that is, not all of them agree, but the basic premise is the same). For all intents and purposes, it is not a person—it is still a part of the mother, thus making it her choice whether to keep or remove it. I absolutely understand this argument as well. Ultimately, neither argument is provable or disprovable; rather, it simply comes down to the question of what an individual believes about the embryo and fetus’ development. Continue reading →

I don’t know if you guys have seen this “causes” petition floating around Facebook, but I certainly hope you have—and I am curious regarding your opinion on it. The digest describes a man, John Dugan, and his heinous act of gutting and disemboweling his dog, Xena, who had swallowed some of Dugan’s heroin packets. Allegedly, Dugan admitted to committing the act, but his lawyer is requesting the charges be dropped, which the petition requests the judge not do. The petition ends with, “In signing this petition we also implore [the judge] to impart the maximum penalty of 5 years incarceration as defined by MA law if Mr. Dugan is found guilty upon trial.”

I’m not going to talk about how these petition pushers might better spend their time trying to avenge the many human lives that have been taken away that deserve justice, because I absolutely agree that animal cruelty is a terrible thing that must be stopped; animals suffer in the same way that humans do, and I can’t even imagine what confusion and fear the last few moments of poor Xena’s life must have embodied. I am, however going to talk about how silly I think it is that these people are petitioning a judge not only on how to run his trial, but also on what penalty he should impart on the Dugan. Am I crazy, or is the judge supposed to look at evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, receive (though not necessarily adhere to) advisement from the jury on the extent of the penalty, take into account past precedent, and make his decision based on those factors alone? I can only hope I never find myself in court with a lot of enemies in the American public—the day a judge starts making his decisions based on a petition is a sad day for the American judicial system.

Ok, “you” is a bit direct. I’m really speaking more generally—I just thought the title was stronger in the second person. Anyway… The Oxford dictionary defines tolerance as “the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.” We shall ignore the fact that the definition in fact uses the word from which it derives, and move forward hoping that we all have a suitable personal definition of the word “tolerate.” It is the second clause of the above definition with which I am most concerned, and the absolute requisition and misuse of the word by many Americans. Continue reading →

The process of evolution by natural selection has fascinated me ever since I started reading more in-depth about it a couple years ago. I’ve written plenty about it, so don’t worry—this blog is only tangentially related to the evolution of species (but operates under the assumption that it is how humans came about). In any case, it is necessary to open with a few words regarding the course of the evolution of homo sapiens. In general, we can look at pretty much everything about us and say, “This trait has an evolutionary advantage of __________.” It makes sense, otherwise why would a given trait have stood the test of time (and natural selection)? But I find it very strange when there are two traits that one would think are a byproduct of natural selection, yet do not make sense together. The two traits in question are our natural fear of death (pretty obvious why that came about), and the solely human affinity for religion and, more specifically, the belief in an afterlife. Most people who believe in an afterlife still fear death. But why? Because they nevertheless evolved to do so, regardless of that other trait telling them they have nothing to fear in death.

Now, there are some people who disagree with the idea that religion is just a byproduct of evolution; however, there are perhaps more people who argue that everything about us simply must have come about through evolution by natural selection—perhaps variation might allow for some trait to exist for a short period, but ultimately, if it doesn’t offer an evolutionary advantage, it will disappear. I find myself in the former category. Why, you ask? Why would such a staunch believer in evolution deny a trait’s existence by natural selection? While at first that may seem to be my argument, it actually is the opposite. I would argue that ideas, such as religion, actually do undergo evolution by natural selection of themselves, rather than the thing that originally created them. Continue reading →

I’ve spent a lot of time in my life discussing the topic of abortion with people; in fact, it used to be one of my second-date questions. I didn’t bring it up because I particularly cared about the other person’s viewpoint, nor did I bring it up because I thought I could change anyone’s opinion on the subject (let’s face it—how many of you have ever successfully accomplished that?). No, I brought it up because I always found the discussion thought-provoking, and it was always a pleasure to hear the variety of reasons that someone would cite for feeling the way he or she did. It was always an especial pleasure bringing up the subject in groups of people who, it often turned out, disagreed with one another; any argument someone would make invariably turned out to be generally futile. There is one argument that the pro-choice caucus makes that I find particularly bothersome not because I think it isn’t valid, but because it is one of the most useless arguments to make in the debate regarding abortion. Continue reading →

I’ve seen many people posting this phrase within their Facebook statuses or in the form of a picture on their walls… “Pray For The Peace Of Jerusalem.” I think we all can agree that peace in Jerusalem (and its surrounding areas) would be a very good thing. You’ll be happy (I hope) to know that I’m not about to pick a side to support over the course of this post, so if that is what you came to watch me do, go somewhere else to read a one-sided argument (you should be satisfied with either one—they sound similar). Instead, I’m going to merely suggest that there are better things we could be doing with our time than praying for the peace of Jerusalem.

Now before you start huffing and puffing, please hear me out. This is a short post, and you owe it to me (well, not really) to read the whole thing. Here’s the truth: I see no evidence that anyone’s God gives a darn about peace in Jerusalem, unless the darn he gives is that peace in Jerusalem never exist. I also see no evidence that anyone’s prayers are going to convince said God to change his mind. Continue reading →

When a child is deprived by its parents of the care it requires, the parents are often tried criminally for their neglect. And so they should be! I expect no one who reads this blog would have it any other way (although if you would have it another way, don’t hesitate to express your differing opinion! I should hate to have put false words into your mouth). In cases in which the child dies, often times the neglectful parents are charged with murder; there may be some of you who disagree with that, but I expect we can all agree that the parents should at least be dealt with severely for their recklessness, murder charges or otherwise.

There are, however, parents who have escaped harsh sentencing, and all of them have one thing in common (other than responsibility for their children’s deaths): they all belong to some type of religion that practices or encourages “faith-healing.” As long as you were depriving your child of medical attention because you were making sure God was attending to him, the judge will likely be quite lenient to you. Continue reading →

It’s been about 12 hours since my last post, so fear not—this one is quite short. I simply wanted to pose a question to you that I ponder myself on a frequent basis. Do you believe in God? Or a creator of some sort? I would encourage you to comment on this post and tell me (and the other blog readers) about it. This is not a post in which I will try to refute your claims, but simply one by which I would like to discover more about those of my readers who are religious, and see what points you bring up regarding the topic. So I encourage you to bear witness and tell me, why do you believe in God? Thank you for all of your insight in advance!

I wanted to write a shorter blog today, as I had a very long work day and I really didn’t feel like thinking too hard after my brain had already exhausted all but a few particularly athletic cells. Pity was, I had no clue what to write about, so I started surfing the internet to find some material. In fact, I didn’t have to look far before I stumbled across something that energized those brain cells that had previously clocked out for the day. I am referring to an article I ran into on Creation Today’s website. The article is titled “Creationists Point To Huge Holes In Evolution ‘Theory,’” and it attempts to pose questions to evolutionists that it believes they cannot answer without admitting the theory’s shortcomings. I read the article as I, a skeptic, am always looking for points that might prove or disprove something, and the article’s title piqued my interest like few have done recently. However, the article left me with only answers to the questions they asked about evolution and I would like to share those answers in this post.

Now, I’m in the process of building a reader base for my blog, and I can’t think of people I would more like to read it than the fine people at Creation Today. So, I have tweeted them @creationtoday on Twitter, and hopefully they will do me the honor of reading (and critiquing!) the following post. Since I do want to keep my posts a bit shorter, this post will be the first in a two-or-three part series critiquing the article linked above. Don’t worry, though, I’ll post other things in between the pieces of my series, and I’ll keep Creation Today posted regarding my progress. Continue reading →